HouseMD wrote:
Also, foreigners were partly responsible for the fall of China. Absent foreign influence that made the monarchy appear ineffective and outdated, China would certainly have remained a kingdom.

From Han Chines perspective of the time, the Manchu Qing Empire was a foreign invader that invaded and occupied China since 1644. To put it simply, it was an Empire of 400-450 million people, ruled by a foreign tribe of 5 million. Regardless of European activities, the empire's subjects would've continued to rebel due to ethnic nationalism. Yuan Shikai pressured the Qing Imperials to abdicate in 1912 not because he couldn't defeat the rebels (he had already beaten them in battle) with the Beiyang Army, but because he knew that regardless of whatever benefits or titles the Manchus were willing to grant him, as an ethnic Han he will NEVER be one of THEM.

An ethnic Manchu from birth enjoyed elite status and government pension for life. The original intent was that Manchus should continue to train as warriors of the banner armies instead of engaging in trade or work. Unfortunately the result from collecting handouts for couple centuries is that the tribal warriors turned into lazy bums that couldn't even ride a horse. That was the reason why the Manchu military weakened and they had to recruit ethnic Han to fight in the armies, which in turn held questionable loyalty to the Qing Imperials.

In effect, not having to work and given too much freedom & free time caused the decline and destruction of the Manchu tribe. After the fall of Qing, the once prominent Manchus were reduced to poverty as they lacked work ethnics, skills, and know-how. Being a fat, lazy poet did not pay the bills, and the once prominent Manchu families fell into poverty without government subsidies.

HouseMD wrote:
Also, foreigners were partly responsible for the fall of China. Absent foreign influence that made the monarchy appear ineffective and outdated, China would certainly have remained a kingdom.

From Han Chines perspective of the time, the Manchu Qing Empire was a foreign invader that invaded and occupied China since 1644. To put it simply, it was an Empire of 400-450 million people, ruled by a foreign tribe of 5 million. Regardless of European activities, the empire's subjects would've continued to rebel due to ethnic nationalism. Yuan Shikai pressured the Qing Imperials to abdicate in 1912 not because he couldn't defeat the rebels (he had already beaten them in battle) with the Beiyang Army, but because he knew that regardless of whatever benefits or titles the Manchus were willing to grant him, as an ethnic Han he will NEVER be one of THEM.

An ethnic Manchu from birth enjoyed elite status and government pension for life. The original intent was that Manchus should continue to train as warriors of the banner armies instead of engaging in trade or work. Unfortunately the result from collecting handouts for couple centuries is that the tribal warriors turned into lazy bums that couldn't even ride a horse. That was the reason why the Manchu military weakened and they had to recruit ethnic Han to fight in the armies, which in turn held questionable loyalty to the Qing Imperials.

In effect, not having to work and given too much freedom & free time caused the decline and destruction of the Manchu tribe. After the fall of Qing, the once prominent Manchus were reduced to poverty as they lacked work ethnics, skills, and know-how. Being a fat, lazy poet did not pay the bills, and the once prominent Manchu families fell into poverty without government subsidies.

I was under the impression that much of the civil unrest was also due to China's perceived inability to compete with other world powers at the time, both financially and militarily, and that the revolution largely sought to clear the path for China to rise from stagnation to being a great global power once again. Had the Chinese not seen the successes of other governments and economic models, even once the Qing Imperials were removed from power, they likely would have been replaced by a new monarchy of some sort. I do not claim foreign influence was the sole, or even the largest, factor in China's change to a new governmental model, but that absent outside influence, things could very well have ended differently.

I concede that I have a layman's knowledge of Chinese history, and thus cannot say I am learned on the matter, let alone an expert. I'm more throwing ideas out there for the more learned on the topic like yourself and others to pick at and tell me what they think.

You say the Jews aren't diabolocal and are simply sitting on their laurels, watching the west burn.

Someone else says that the Jews are attacking them on all fronts.

Based on my own real-world research and connecting the dots, and I mean no personal disrespect to you, but I'm sure as hell not gonna believe you. Now the latter may be a bit crazy of course, but who's to say that person isn't telling the truth? Do you have any evidence that the Jews have never put their hands in anyone's business?

In other words, guilty until proven innocent? Even if totally slanderous statements were made?

The thing is because of such fabricated slander, a lot of innocent people who personally did not harm anyone and just lived regular lives as teachers or cobblers, lost their lives, or at best got exiled or just had their lives ruined without any reason- just by collective guilt based on a total invention/fabrication.

Who is saying "never"?. And "putting hands in business" is such a broad term. But these inventions of Jewish conspiracies almost never have any actual proof. You ask them where the meeting took place and who met there and they have no answer at all.

And most bankers in the world are not Jewish and Israel is a bankrupt little country with an average income of less that $2000 a month. Jews do have as much power as everyone thinks, but it's mostly WASPs in the USA that are the elite. In the Middle East, it's the Saudis that have real money, the Emiratis and the Chinese in Asia. Their bankers are the biggest.The Jewish thing is so exaggerated and so out of wack, that it's not even funny.

ladislav wrote:In other words, guilty until proven innocent? Even if totally slanderous statements were made?

The thing is because of such fabricated slander, a lot of innocent people who personally did not harm anyone and just lived regular lives as teachers or cobblers, lost their lives, or at best got exiled or just had their lives ruined without any reason- just by collective guilt based on a total invention/fabrication.

Who is saying "never"?. And "putting hands in business" is such a broad term. But these inventions of Jewish conspiracies almost never have any actual proof.

Proof only exists in mathematics. It is a matter of pulling together multiple strands of evidence. If Jews have massively disproportionate control of key elements of genocidal Western regimes (finance, media etc.), if they had massive disproportional control of previous genocidal regimes such as in the Soviet Union, if they had a massive disproportionate influence in founding genocidal hate movements such as feminism, if a Rabbi can preach that goyim are donkeys given human form to be used by the Jews and get (as I recall) 19% of the population of Israel attending his funeral etc. etc. - putting all that together might make one stroke one's chin and think "Hmmm, maybe there is some kind of problem with the Jews".

Winston wrote:
When China's monarchy collapsed in 1911, did they blame foreign influence on that too, since China was occupied by American and European forces during the Opium Wars?

1. The Qing Dynasty did not collapse in 1911.

2. The 2nd opium war ended in 1860, some half century before the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. By then larger foreign threat to Qing had shifted from Europeans to Japanese (see: first Sino-Japanese War).

3. The pro-republican rebels put the western powers between a rock and hard place. On one hand the rebels were a risk, because if they succeeded, they may or may not honor Qing Dynasty treaties (which benefited the western powers). On the other hand, if they assisted the Qing Dynasty militarily, that would give the Republican forces justifications for casting them out after the revolution. In the end, they opted for "wait and see".

Ok I see. I'm basing this on movies and documentaries, which tend to rush through things. I don't understand something about the Opium War though. If the Chinese didn't want the British selling opium to them, why were they unable to kick them out? In the 1800's, China had 400 million people. The British only had a few thousand troops in China to squelch opposition to them. How can 400 million people be unable to wipe out a few thousand British troops? It should have been a total cakewalk for the Chinese, even with only swords and arrows. Wtf?

Even in Africa, the Shaka Zulu tribe were able to defeat British troops in battle with spears and shields. So why couldn't 400 million Chinese? That's odd. Sounds like a big plot hole in a movie.

Also, if the Chinese invented gunpowder, then why didn't they have guns to wipe out the British troops? Why were the Chinese powerless against the British?

And why was China forced to sign a treaty with Britain in which they gave up control of Hong Kong to them? How did Britain have any bargaining power? Their troops in China should easily have been defeated in a few hours, even if the Chinese army only had swords. Again, sounds like a big plot hole in a movie that's not realistic.

Also, during the Boxer Rebellion, how did the Chinese Boxers and the Imperial Army lose to the American and British troops? How does a few thousand troops win over 500 million? Even with swords and arrows, the 500 million could easily take them out or stampede them to death. They should have had no chance. Wtf?

Finally, how did 3,000 years of monarch in China suddenly end so quickly? Didn't the Empress have the power to squash rebellions? That's what emperors are supposed to do right?

I'm confused about the two "Last Emperors" you mentioned and posted an image of. Which was the one in the movie "The Last Emperor" that came out in 1987? And did he suddenly lose all his power and get kicked out of the Forbidden City? The movie was rushed and never explained that. The historical events in the movie were only explained with one or two sentences, so you never knew how they happened.

Each part is 2 hours, for a total of 6 hours. It's very long and interesting. I watched all of it already. It makes China look like a dangerous and violent place where people are executed for trivial reasons. It's not like that anymore is it?

Winston wrote:
When China's monarchy collapsed in 1911, did they blame foreign influence on that too, since China was occupied by American and European forces during the Opium Wars?

1. The Qing Dynasty did not collapse in 1911.

2. The 2nd opium war ended in 1860, some half century before the end of the Qing Dynasty in 1912. By then larger foreign threat to Qing had shifted from Europeans to Japanese (see: first Sino-Japanese War).

3. The pro-republican rebels put the western powers between a rock and hard place. On one hand the rebels were a risk, because if they succeeded, they may or may not honor Qing Dynasty treaties (which benefited the western powers). On the other hand, if they assisted the Qing Dynasty militarily, that would give the Republican forces justifications for casting them out after the revolution. In the end, they opted for "wait and see".

Ok I see. I'm basing this on movies and documentaries, which tend to rush through things. I don't understand something about the Opium War though. If the Chinese didn't want the British selling opium to them, why were they unable to kick them out? In the 1800's, China had 400 million people. The British only had a few thousand troops in China to squelch opposition to them. How can 400 million people be unable to wipe out a few thousand British troops? It should have been a total cakewalk for the Chinese. Wtf?

Even in Africa, the Shaka Zulu tribe were able to defeat British troops in battle. So why couldn't 400 million Chinese? That's odd. Sounds like a big plot hole in a movie.

Also, if the Chinese invented gunpowder, then why didn't they have guns to wipe out the British troops? Why were the Chinese powerless against the British?

And why was China forced to sign a treaty with Britain in which they gave up control of Hong Kong to them? How did Britain have any bargaining power? Their troops in China should easily have been defeated in a few hours, even if the Chinese army only had swords. Again, sounds like a big plot hole in a movie that's not realistic.

Also, during the Boxer Rebellion, how did the Chinese Boxers and the Imperial Army lose to the American and British troops? How does a few thousand troops win over 500 million? Even with swords, the 500 million could easily stampede them to death. They should have no chance. Wtf?

Finally, how did 3,000 years of monarch in China suddenly end so quickly? Didn't the Empress have the power to squash rebellions? That's what emperors are supposed to do right?

I'm confused about the two "Last Emperors" you mentioned and posted an image of. Which was the one in the movie "The Last Emperor" that came out in 1987? And did he suddenly lose all his power and get kicked out of the Forbidden City? The movie was rushed and never explained that. The historical events in the movie were only explained with one or two sentences, so you never knew how they happened.

Each part is 2 hours, for a total of 6 hours. It's very long and interesting. I watched all of it already. It makes China look like a dangerous and violent place where people are executed for trivial reasons. It's not like that anymore is it?

The thing is, all you need to do is wipe out the forces guarding the royal elite to win a war. If they fear their own deaths, they will make whatever concessions you want.

And people are still executed for questionable reasons. Was listening to a story on the BBC about a Chinese woman whose husband was executed by public officials on bullshit charges just so they could size his property and business. He was executed within hours, and no one was permitted at the trial. It isn't common, and likely would never happen to a foreigner, however.

ladislav wrote:In other words, guilty until proven innocent? Even if totally slanderous statements were made?

The thing is because of such fabricated slander, a lot of innocent people who personally did not harm anyone and just lived regular lives as teachers or cobblers, lost their lives, or at best got exiled or just had their lives ruined without any reason- just by collective guilt based on a total invention/fabrication.

Who is saying "never"?. And "putting hands in business" is such a broad term. But these inventions of Jewish conspiracies almost never have any actual proof.

Proof only exists in mathematics. It is a matter of pulling together multiple strands of evidence. If Jews have massively disproportionate control of key elements of genocidal Western regimes (finance, media etc.), if they had massive disproportional control of previous genocidal regimes such as in the Soviet Union, if they had a massive disproportionate influence in founding genocidal hate movements such as feminism, if a Rabbi can preach that goyim are donkeys given human form to be used by the Jews and get (as I recall) 19% of the population of Israel attending his funeral etc. etc. - putting all that together might make one stroke one's chin and think "Hmmm, maybe there is some kind of problem with the Jews".

He was sort of legendarily offensive, the Joe Biden of Israeli religion. The Israel Times actually kept an updated top 5 list of the most offensive things he had said. As to the reason he had such a large funeral- not all Jews supported him, but the orthodox community loved him, and is quite large in Israel. Orthodox Jews are a different breed, they actually do often resent outsiders and have a caricatured view of others that is taught from childhood. But they are the poorest of Jews, the equivalent of hyper conservative Christians in how many liberal Jews see them- overzealous crazy people that seek only to impose their will on others. Like conservative muslims, christians, or mormons, the leaders of their conservative wing say crazy shit about outsiders and sin. Hes no different than the preacher who tells his people that they need to make this world a kingdom of god or the muslim that says the world needs to fall under shariah law. The liberal Jews generally only go to synagogue once a year, amd most know as much about the Torah and talmud as the average liberal Christian does about the Bible.

There are a lot of dangerous liberals that happen to be Jewish, but they would be considered to be living lives of sin by the orthodox community and unworthy of inclusion. They view feminism to be an abomination as much as we do, and have moved to the point of violence to discourage it in some israeli neighborhoods. Yet you claim these two disparate groups with completely opposite ideals are somehow working together, lesbian feminist jews with the ultra orthodox rabbis that would have them stoned were their word law? It just seems highly implausible.

There are a lot of liberal Jews because Jews attain a high level of education, and have proven to generally be of high intelligence. Intelligence and education combined with a liberal mindset put them in positions of power with dangerous ideas, but that is care of liberalism, not their Jewish heritage. There are such a high percentage of them on the hard left of things that I can see why many on the right would just see a conspiracy- as I've posted before, people on the right are far more likely to believe in conspiracies in general to begin with.

Winston wrote:
Ok I see. I'm basing this on movies and documentaries, which tend to rush through things. I don't understand something about the Opium War though. If the Chinese didn't want the British selling opium to them, why were they unable to kick them out? In the 1800's, China had 400 million people. The British only had a few thousand troops in China to squelch opposition to them. How can 400 million people be unable to wipe out a few thousand British troops? It should have been a total cakewalk for the Chinese, even with only swords and arrows. Wtf?

The Opium War was mostly naval and coastal conflict, not a mass land war. The Qing Empire lost because they had inferior warships and insufficient numerical superiority to overcome the technology gap. Traditionally, Qing Empire's enemies were inland and internal, the only major naval war they had fought prior was the conquest of Taiwan in 1683 with 300 warships. By 1840's the Qing Navy had not been a priority for 150 years.

While the Qing military was ineffective, the British was wary of the large civilian population. When the British looted Canton, the local population was pissed off and formed large militias to attack the British, at which point the British quickly negotiated with the local governor and retreated back to their ships.

Ultimately, the decline in Qing military is due to their own welfare policy, where members of the Manchu banners were given free money and food by the government. They were supposed to be training for war, but instead became fat and lazy.

Winston wrote:
Also, during the Boxer Rebellion, how did the Chinese Boxers and the Imperial Army lose to the American and British troops? How does a few thousand troops win over 500 million? Even with swords and arrows, the 500 million could easily take them out or stampede them to death. They should have had no chance. Wtf?

When the 8 nation alliance sent about 50,000 men to invade Beijing, the various factions of Qing Imperial Army and regional Governors opted to stay neutral to conserve their power base. Theoretically the Qing Empire was supposed to have 1.5 million Banner Army plus various ethnic Armies, but in reality corruption was rife and only about 70,000 fought in defense of Beijing.

Had the Qing Imperial Government fell, the regional governors, who commanded hundreds of thousands of troops, would have became regional warlords with their own fiefdom. Consider, if you were an ethnic Han governor with 100,000 troops under your command, why risk your troops to defend the Manchu throne, which you consider to be an outsider lording over your own tribe? If you sit back and the Manchu throne falls, you're now the new lord and master of whatever province you're in charge of (and whatever neighboring territory that you could take by force or other means).

Ironically, the same foreign powers that invaded Beijing had to prop up the Qing Imperial Government, because otherwise they couldn't get paid from the 450 million taels of silver indemnity imposed on China.

Winston wrote:
Finally, how did 3,000 years of monarch in China suddenly end so quickly? Didn't the Empress have the power to squash rebellions? That's what emperors are supposed to do right?

I'm confused about the two "Last Emperors" you mentioned and posted an image of. Which was the one in the movie "The Last Emperor" that came out in 1987? And did he suddenly lose all his power and get kicked out of the Forbidden City? The movie was rushed and never explained that. The historical events in the movie were only explained with one or two sentences, so you never knew how they happened.

As I've already explained, Yuan Shikai, who commanded the most modern and powerful army in Northern China at the time, forced the Qing throne to abdicate so he can become President of the new Republic. Later, he would declare himself the new Emperor of China in 1915-1916. You can read about it here:

Had Yuan Shikai been loyal to the throne, he would've defeated the revolutionary forces in 1911, and China's Monarchy would've lasted longer. But from his perspective, being non-Manchu, he is an "outsider" to the Qing Imperials and sooner or later, they will get rid of him anyway. So he took a chance to grab for power.

Understand that the Manchus were a tribe of 5 million, lording over a population of 400 million non-Manchus. How you maintain power in those days was either by force (stick) or by money (carrot). When the Manchus first invaded Northern China, as a smaller tribe they simply did not have the force to conquer Southern China, so they came to an arrangement with the Ming Generals in the South and paid them off. Some 60% of the Qing Empire's annual revenue was paid to the (formally) Ming Generals and their buddies. Ultimately this did not produce any meaningful loyalty, and long after the Ming Generals were gone, the replacement Governors of those Provinces ignored the Imperial Throne's call for assistance during the Boxer Conflict.

On subject of opium, it had been in use in China since the 15th century, first given as tribute by other tribes. The Ming initially used it as medicinal product and its viagra like properties, then they became aware of its harmful side effects and banned it. The Manchus who conquered the Ming over-turned the ban and legalized opium, selling it to the wealthy Han Chinese. However by 19th century it had become a problem and the rest is history. The British wanted to sell opium to China because it was an expensive and profitable product, but after the 2nd opium war when the Brits forced Qing to again legalize opium, China became the world's largest producer of opium & crashing the market. The irony here is that the Manchus were the ones who legalized opium in China in 17th century to make a buck, and the Brits who went to war against China to legalize opium in 19th century would eventually kill their own profits. It was cheaper to grow in China than to have it shipped from India.

Wow check out this book by Dr. David Duke about the Secret (Jews) behind Communism and how the Bolshevik Revolution was actually the biggest and most terrible holocaust in world history, not the Jewish holocaust of WWII as is commonly believed.

By Dr. David Duke, incorporating the writings of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Frank Britton and others. This is the single most important work on the ethnic origins of the Russian Revolution and the greatest Holocaust in the history of mankind: Soviet Communism and its tentacles which spread out all over the world.

It is estimated that more than 30 million—and perhaps untold millions more—died in the Holocaust which Communism created.

From the millions who suffered in the Gulags through to the Ukrainian Holodomor—which is still the single greatest genocide in all history—the blood-stained hands of Communism and its creators brought untold misery and deprivation to nearly half the world’s population.

This book rips aside the curtain which has been placed to cover up the single, dedicated, fanatic and murderous ethnic group which founded and controlled this “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization” (as Churchill called it): Jewish Supremacists.

Read of how Jewish Supremacists created and guided the Communist movement, from its germination, to the “Russian” Revolution, the seizure of Eastern Europe, its tentacles in America and Britain, South Africa and even in early Communist China.

The great Russian patriot Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who himself suffered greatly in the Jewish-run Gulags, and who later won the Nobel Prize, stated these powerful words:

“You must understand. The leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They Hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of human remorse…

More of my countrymen suffered horrific crimes at their blood-stained hands than any people or nation ever suffered in the entirety of human history.

It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism committed the greatest human slaughter of all time.

The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this enormous crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of its perpetrators.”

This book is unique in that it brings all of the most powerful historical evidence together in one unified coherent work. It even has key translations from Solzhenitsyn’s book Two Hundred Years Together, a book that has been kept from the English-speaking world.

It also has startling revelations from Jewish historians and Jewish writers admitting their leading role in communism, their role in the mass murders, and it shows the ethnic racism that motivated the ethnic genocides against non-Jewish peoples.

Perhaps even more importantly the book shows how both Zionism and Communism ultimately come from the same source and how among the worldwide Jewish community, communism has been subsumed into Zionism. In the European world, Jewish tribalists are today orchestrating a genocide of their racial enemies, only in different form than that of Soviet Bolshevism.

It's a very easy question to answer. American hate the notion of Communism because people realize that in order for it to exist and succeed we'd have to take a DRASTIC hit to our standard of living for it to succeed. If we place everybody on an even playing field there is NO WAY that your average American can afford the following:

The list of things that we'd have to give up are lengthy. Any of you guys ever watch the Long Way Around? It's the movie in which the actor Ewan McGregor and his buddy drive across the former Soviet Union. Once you get out into the countryside, it's SHOCKING to see how folks live their lives. If a family is lucky enough to own a house, it's a very basic home with no frills. Folks own a few nice possessions, a few items of clothing and that's about it. This IMHO, portraits an accurate picture of what our lives would look like in order for communism to succeed.

So take your average American's lifestyle and divide it in half. Then take that sum and divide in half again and then you'd get an idea of your new way of life. It wouldn't be pretty! Americans are extremely spoiled and they won't voluntarily give up their slice of the American Dream.

Problem is that you can't elevate the poor and give everybody our high standard of living. Ain't gonna happen because there aren't enough assets in the world to support this notion. There is only way direction with true socialism and Americans may think they are fans of socialism but when they find out it's going to effect them in a negative manner, they'll lose interest very fast.

It should be obvious America loves communism. That's why American culture is the most degenerate in the world.

America didn't enter WW II until Germany attacked Russia. The purpose of American intervention in the war was to save communism in Russia. After the war Russia and America emerged as bitter enemies(or so we're told) after teaming up to beat Germany. This doesn't make any sense because its a lie. Russia and America have always been best friends despite what we're told.

Americans refuse to believe that American banks finance communism. Its one of the bankers pet projects. However, my guess is you'll be a believer once you lose everything you own.

"Your children's children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; WE'LL SO WEAKEN YOUR ECONOMY, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." - Nikita Khrushchev, Sept. 29, 1959, speech, United Nations

“Every time a President leaves the White House after two terms, there is a recession within the next year"

Taco wrote:It should be obvious America loves communism. That's why American culture is the most degenerate in the world.

America didn't enter WW II until Germany attacked Russia. The purpose of American intervention in the war was to save communism in Russia. After the war Russia and America emerged as bitter enemies(or so we're told) after teaming up to beat Germany. This doesn't make any sense because its a lie. Russia and America have always been best friends despite what we're told.

Americans refuse to believe that American banks finance communism. Its one of the bankers pet projects. However, my guess is you'll be a believer once you lose everything you own.

"Your children's children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; WE'LL SO WEAKEN YOUR ECONOMY, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." - Nikita Khrushchev, Sept. 29, 1959, speech, United Nations

Their loaning us a supply of #'s at interest, our stupidity is what makes it go world wide.

Taco wrote:It should be obvious America loves communism. That's why American culture is the most degenerate in the world.

America didn't enter WW II until Germany attacked Russia. The purpose of American intervention in the war was to save communism in Russia. After the war Russia and America emerged as bitter enemies(or so we're told) after teaming up to beat Germany. This doesn't make any sense because its a lie. Russia and America have always been best friends despite what we're told.

Americans refuse to believe that American banks finance communism. Its one of the bankers pet projects. However, my guess is you'll be a believer once you lose everything you own.

"Your children's children will live under communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; WE'LL SO WEAKEN YOUR ECONOMY, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." - Nikita Khrushchev, Sept. 29, 1959, speech, United Nations

There may be some truth to this. How can it be that after WWII, the US and Soviet Union suddenly became enemies overnight? And why did the US allow Russia to conquer and occupy Eastern Europe if it was trying to liberate Europe?

General Patton had a problem with that, and perhaps that's why he was killed, because he would have spilled the beans when he came back to America with his big mouth and all. So he may have been taken out for similar reasons as why Pat Tillman was killed in Iraq. Even Bill O'Reilly of Fox News wrote a book called "Killing Patton" in which he argues that Patton was murdered and that fact was covered up.

Also, isn't American liberalism a stepping stone toward communism anyway, especially with the BS talk about equality? It just seems to be approaching communism from a different angle. However, liberalism is against traditional values whereas Soviet communism did not preach against traditional values.

Does this mean that Putin isn't really an enemy of the West? Or that the Cold War was staged too?